Just had to comment on the end of the article regarding the iPhone clone garbage. Take a good look at the Google phones and you'll see they don't *look* anything like the iPhone. The iPhone is just a application launcher on its primary screens; boring and bland. Google Android makes the iPhone look like the iPhone is to the Palm Treo; yesterday's technology. There's no comparison!

If that were actually the case, why isn't the iPhone being compared to these 'trend setting, envelope pushing' Android phones, instead of being the other way around? Even among very Android-friendly CNET reviews, the best you can hear about Android models is wording along the lines of "this is likely the best attempt yet to take on the iPhone."

Android may offer you or other tech-savvy people the ability to do things not offered on the iPhone (and that's a short list!) but it's not broadly appealing to users (too complicated, missing major features, stuff simply doesn't work - try connecting to inflight WiFi), carriers are not as interested in Android as they once were, and hardware makers see Android as being a common denominator that will reduce their offerings into commodity products just like Windows took away most of the value of PCs.

Only the two biggest losers have focused on Android (Motorola and Sony Ericsson, the only two major smartphone makers unable to make money in recent years), while HTC & LG have hedged their bet with WiMo/WP7, Samsung has its own Bada backup plan, and Nokia, HP, RIM are all hanging on to their own platforms. Do you know something they all don't?

Quote:

And to the article itself, a developer that already pulled all this apart finds virtually none of the accused code is actually found in the end shipping product. Sorry for the waste of bytes on this article...

Actually that didn't happen. Instead, a guy made some excuses for the files in question for ZDNet, and Ars similarly suggested that the new files found "were not a smoking gun," while also admitting that is was still a big problem for Google.

A confident rebuttal isn't necessarily "the last word" on a subject just because it might be what you want to hear.

The real issue for Google isn't these newly reported files anyway - they're just additional evidence that Google isn't doing a great job in managing Android.

The REAL problem, the one Oracle is suing over, is a series of files that you get when you disassemble Java, which turns out to be exactly what you get when you look at Android. Early development simply churned out Java and called it Android, then fixed some mobile-related problems with Java, such as its VM design, and called it non-Java and therefore not needing to license Java IP.

The problem is, there's lots of evidence that Android simply is Java, and these additional files just indicate how sloppy Android development is. Taking GPL code and replacing the license text with a more permissive license that allows commercial, proprietary development isn't just illegal and an affront to IP laws, it's also a slap in the face to the very Free and Open Source ideals Android is supposedly promoting, and very obviously a sign that Android developers don't respect others' IP.

Oracle/Sun offered some portions of Java under GPL for specific reasons. Google essentially took Oracle/Sun's GPL code and used it opposite of what it was licensed to do. Google had no right to do that, and appears to have assumed not just damages (which are pretty obvious given the hammering that Android has done to JavaME as a mobile platform) but also surrounded the event with lots of evidence that backs up that this was not just an isolated incident or automated mistake, but simply how Google rolls.

Every major cash-cow Google product is stolen IP: it stole its key paid search placement IP from Overture, it stole Android from Sun's Java, and WebM is pretty clearly an infringing implementation of MPEG, just like virtually every other proprietary codec On2 created. At least Microsoft wrote some of its own apps.

Google is killing off competition in the marketplace by simply stealing other people's IP and "selling" it as its own ad platform. Ask Gizmodo how the whole "selling of stolen goods" worked out.

But really, the Oracle case against Google is more than even that: Oracle is asserting a series of patent claims against Google's modified Java VM that it calls Dvalik. When Google first announced that it was doing this in 2007, the tech world gasped, but Sun never took any action so everyone seemed to decide it was okay. Well now Oracle is saying, hell no, you got to pay.

The Oracle case against Google is a lot like the Apple/Pystar case, except that Google simply changed more of the code it took, like Pystar, to sell its own product with less work.

Google still overtly repurposed Java to "create" Android. It could have gotten away with this if it had worked harder to do it the right way, making a very clean effort not to contaminate Android with obvious code theft from Java. It simply didn't, as is obvious in a number of parallel cases of evidence, not just the new files in question.

Actually that didn't happen. Instead, a guy made some excuses for the files in question for ZDNet, and Ars similarly suggested that the new files found "were not a smoking gun," while also admitting that is was still a big problem for Google.

A confident rebuttal isn't necessarily "the last word" on a subject just because it might be what you want to hear.

The real issue for Google isn't these newly reported files anyway - they're just additional evidence that Google isn't doing a great job in managing Android.

The REAL problem, the one Oracle is suing over, is a series of files that you get when you disassemble Java, which turns out to be exactly what you get when you look at Android. Early development simply churned out Java and called it Android, then fixed some mobile-related problems with Java, such as its VM design, and called it non-Java and therefore not needing to license Java IP.

The problem is, there's lots of evidence that Android simply is Java, and these additional files just indicate how sloppy Android development is. Taking GPL code and replacing the license text with a more permissive license that allows commercial, proprietary development isn't just illegal and an affront to IP laws, it's also a slap in the face to the very Free and Open Source ideals Android is supposedly promoting, and very obviously a sign that Android developers don't respect others' IP.

Oracle/Sun offered some portions of Java under GPL for specific reasons. Google essentially took Oracle/Sun's GPL code and used it opposite of what it was licensed to do. Google had no right to do that, and appears to have assumed not just damages (which are pretty obvious given the hammering that Android has done to JavaME as a mobile platform) but also surrounded the event with lots of evidence that backs up that this was not just an isolated incident or automated mistake, but simply how Google rolls.

Every major cash-cow Google product is stolen IP: it stole its key paid search placement IP from Overture, it stole Android from Sun's Java, and WebM is pretty clearly an infringing implementation of MPEG, just like virtually every other proprietary codec On2 created. At least Microsoft wrote some of its own apps.

Google is killing off competition in the marketplace by simply stealing other people's IP and "selling" it as its own ad platform. Ask Gizmodo how the whole "selling of stolen goods" worked out.

But really, the Oracle case against Google is more than even that: Oracle is asserting a series of patent claims against Google's modified Java VM that it calls Dvalik. When Google first announced that it was doing this in 2007, the tech world gasped, but Sun never took any action so everyone seemed to decide it was okay. Well now Oracle is saying, hell no, you got to pay.

The Oracle case against Google is a lot like the Apple/Pystar case, except that Google simply changed more of the code it took, like Pystar, to sell its own product with less work.

Google still overtly repurposed Java to "create" Android. It could have gotten away with this if it had worked harder to do it the right way, making a very clean effort not to contaminate Android with obvious code theft from Java. It simply didn't, as is obvious in a number of parallel cases of evidence, not just the new files in question.

On2 been around for many years and made their codecs before MPEG4 came out. It's quite possible that MPEG4 is infringing on them.

As far as your Dalvik argument is concerned, improving on someone else's work and calling it your own isn't illegal. In fact, there are plenty of other programming languages that already did this and are not being sued over anything because Oracle can't. There's a much more technical argument over this back at ars forum, and if you really want to hear it from people much more knowledgeable about it, go there.

And if you are in favor of Oracle, you are in favor of software patents. So I'm sure you also favor Apple being sued over "double click", or via Mr. Horn (aka owner of the MPEG-LA) suing fellow licensee apple over phone operation, right?

This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.

Well suggesting that lawyers are "nit picky" when that is their job - to argue the law - is pretty silly, but then to turn around and call Oracle a "patent troll" for suing over patent infringement is simply absurd.

A Patent Troll is a holding company that does nothing but acquire patents and then sue companies who are actually producing products, usually with weak claims on obvious patents that were not known about by the companies who developed their "infringing" technology on their own.

Oracle's patents are intended to prevent the outright theft of the value of the IP created by Sun and productized in Java. Google wasn't unaware that Sun owned patents related to Java. This wasn't some submarine patent case.

It was a situation where Google could either have a) created its own technology or b) simply licensed Java, but instead decided to copy and then modify Java, give it away for free to kill the market for Java, and the use Android to sell its ads.

The only group of people who could categorize this situation as anything other than the definitive, proper role and entire purpose patents are intended to serve are intellectual communists who don't believe research and invention can be owned or sold as entities. And if you don't believe in commercial rights to IP, you can't turn around and say the GPL can be used to enforce the opposite. Either we have intellectual property rights or we don't, and only have anarchy.

Google is screwing both, stealing commercial technology for commercial release under the guise of "Free Software," while violating the GPL by erasing copyrights and replacing them with its own invented license. Would be hard to find examples of more egregious theft of technology outside of China.

Note1) No he is not having his ... handed to him. I am following the comments too. Although his article is not the best article on this topic, short and useless in my opinion. Try this one which has better detailed analysis:http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...moking-gun.ars

Note2) I do not think this code made it to the build and it is more likely for test purposes. Because the code is part of the MMAPI wrapper and Android does not use MMAPI!

Please let me know if you have an example of MMAPI wrapper used in Android builds and I shall bow to you!

Note3) As ARS stated, the other files which are not being discussed in ZDNET or even Appleinsider are the more interesting ones!

I don't even know what MMAPI is.

The code I looked at, supposedly debunked as a unit test was part of JAVA.Security.

explain to me why makers of smartphones are getting away from android or "hedging" their bets

is it that google is trying on the makers backs to make the UI all similar so that iPhone doesn't stand out as the standard?

or is google using the M$ approach therefore the makers units are just commodities? low or falling avg price....google wants more cheap smartphones

or is it the IP mess??

or is it they have had time to develop their own OS and will replace android??

or is it that the "bloom is off the rose" android sells units but at zero profit??

or is it that the developers don't have much enthusiasm because most are free or pirated??

or is it that android is becoming a virus magnet??

or is it that the handset makers are becoming irelevant

i thought android was the makers new "messiah"
the handset makers can now be relevant

so why "hedge your bets" apple will not license ios to others

well apple has a wonderful ios, and android is a mess, developers don't like making a complex mix of product, none make money on it, android has minimal upgrade to "newer" versions, when you buy android you don't know if they can upgrade, have missing features and what % go back

we will see as time goes by how android vs iphone works out

i like my iphone, upgrades are looked forward to, and it works

but provide me insight from a sony, or samsung, or motorola perspective or other handset maker

i remember when sony had style, moto had the razor, samsung was durable, etc

I read them, they provide an interesting TECHNICAL opinion, however what this involves is LEGAL opinion, did Google cause Oracles copyright files to be distributed without Oracles express permission?

Now as the files are/were freely available as part of Android repositories, then the most likely answer is "yes".

That's all Google had to do make the files available in order to infringe copyright.

You have to wonder at the sudden change in CEO at Google ... they knew this was about to hit the fan maybe? After all Android changed over night from a BB clone to an iPhone clone. Perhaps too fast to be have been done honestly.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

It is code from SUN which determines which user is allowed user permissions. it is a fundamental part of package sun.security.

There is a fair amount of nonsense on this thread. Let me clarify:

1) the code here was taken and decompiled from Sun sources, not from the published GPL
2) the licence was changed, illegally. Sun/ Oracle grants licences to users, subject to the GPL. If the licence is changed the original patents apply. The licence was changed to Apache.
3) Publishing means making available on t'internet ( think of a book). The courts in copyright cases dont care about compilation. Was it in the unit test folder, and not compiled. Geeks may care, the courts are unconcerned.

Someone else's property ( Sun/Oracle) was taken and published ( on a source tree) for anyone to use using a licence which was not designed, nor approved by the creator of the intellectual property.

That in itself is enough. The other patent ( non copy right) suits are - suffice to say - encourged by this. You cant say you clean roomed the technology if a court has decided, as it must, that you copied some, or any, or the minutest percent, of someone else's technolgy.

when Compaq "cloned" the IBM BIOS. It

1) Hired engineers who had nothing to do with IBM
2) Had no code or decompiled IBM assembly.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.

From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.

Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.

You have to wonder at the sudden change in CEO at Google ... they knew this was about to hit the fan maybe? After all Android changed over night from a BB clone to an iPhone clone. Perhaps too fast to be have been done honestly.

While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.

When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.

While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.

When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.

Schmidt and Rubin will cost Google money. If the iOS were as dominant as Android and iOS is now iOS would use google search, and google maps, and gmail. The benefits of Android are zero.

Only a MS product would use its own technology. So why the war with Apple?

1. Unit test files, they aren't packaged, they only serve to test the classes before compiling
2. A zip file with source files that aren't used anywhere, actually they can't be used because are java me files

So if you are correct, then what sort of idiot would do this? Are you saying Oracle have no claim at all?

1) Hired engineers who had nothing to do with IBM
2) Had no code or decompiled IBM assembly.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.

From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.

Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.

Goodbye android. And good riddance.

Where did they take the code with them? In their heads?

Even with a clean room implementation you quoted they had to decompile the original BIOS to see how it worked. They then make a note of how it worked and pass it on to another party to make the Compaq code themselves, to avoid copyright infringement. Hence the "clean room" meaning.

Oracle doesn't care whether or not the code is different; they care that the code infringes on their patents on how Java works, which are broad and obvious. And again, like already mentioned, if you favor Oracle, you favor software patents and people who sue over it, such as those phone patents apple is getting sued over.

In the spirit of constructive criticism was there anything in particular you didn't like? Did I post a little too much from the fence? A little too short? Spelling? Grammar maybe?

In all fairness that one was posted from my iPad which explains the brevity. Maybe I should have tagged "Posted from my iPad" for a little more leniency!

Not this post, but your previous posts have been, how I say, a tad forceful, which I took exception to. Also I don't care if you post from a pc, Mac or even an iPad, it makes no difference to me, but I do understand why you mentioned it.
I suggest you go back and look at some of your posts, the nasty ones, and maybe you will understand where I am coming from.
So if you are seeking help not just from AI staffers but support from the bloggers, you can count me out, it's that simple. Maybe others may have similar attitudue to mine.

Even with a clean room implementation you quoted they had to decompile the original BIOS to see how it worked. They then make a note of how it worked and pass it on to another party to make the Compaq code themselves, to avoid copyright infringement. Hence the "clean room" meaning.

Oracle doesn't care whether or not the code is different; they care that the code infringes on their patents on how Java works, which are broad and obvious. And again, like already mentioned, if you favor Oracle, you favor software patents and people who sue over it, such as those phone patents apple is getting sued over.

Apple can counter sue and come to an agreement ( and yes I believe in IP) . Patents are fuzzy. Copyright is not.

Yes, I guess Sun/Oracle marked these files "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" & "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" because they were "extraneous ggarbage".

It's really very simple as a copyright issue: Did they distribute them? The answer is yes. Case closed.

Although, since these were marked "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" they could also be considered trade secrets, increasing Google's liability.

Agree, open and shut case. Google can try and squirm their way out of this one, and even sacrifice some developer's heads on a plate. But I think they have intentionally done this and simply missed wiping their finger prints. It's so simple, human nature does not change just because high tech is involved. Simple case of stealing, I hope they pay big time.

This Engadget article has already been debunked. What a horrible story.

No the slant has been debunked. The fact remains still that Google distributed Oracle/Sun owned/proprietary source code and released it under a license that they were unauthorised to do so.

Whether or not the code found its way on to devices is irrelevant.

The fact the source code has now been removed is irrelevant.

As far as copyright law is concerned, Google made an unauthorised copy of the source code. This fact cannot be changed, and there is enough evidence to support this. The source code has been distributed and is now "in the wild", against its owners wishes and this has been the case since the Android source was released.

As a result, this is going to cost Google dearly, as Oracle are NOT interested in anything other than financial gain.

How many idiots download the latest crappy Lady Gaga stuff on a torrent? Now how many people download a test suite from Oracle, which is freely available under the GPL as those articles said? Heck even Google can know that via server logs, so unlike the RIAA, Oracle can't pull figures out of its ass about how many copies were infringed. The RIAA can also claim damages even when the person making available the music made no commercial profit. Google making available the code doesn't hurt Oracle in the least bit, and that will be taken into judgment.

Besides, ZDNet already reported they deleted it weeks ago.

If Oracle does sue over it, it will only serve to make them look like stingy bastards (which they already are).

So HIMOKO, stop making an emotionally driven mole hill out of nothing.

NONE of MY BUSINESS on Whatever Reason ZDNet Already Deleted IT or NOT！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！

I'm Not Posting Comments on The Basis of ZDNet Articles AT ALL, IDIOT！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！

Apple can counter sue and come to an agreement ( and yes I believe in IP) . Patents are fuzzy. Copyright is not.

EDIT: in their heads?

No. Do keep up.

They took Sun code.
Decompiled it.
Published it ( i.e in GIT)

Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.

It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.

Oracle isn't going to be dumb enough to waste their time with this. There isn't any "willful" infringement when the company found out about the code and said "Removed pointless test files."

While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.

When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.

I suspect you are exactly right. It will be interesting to see if ES departs Google entirely in the coming months.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

crapple go OUT OF BUSINESS and take down the monsterous spawn called crApple Mobile Operating System AOS (IOS is CISCO! geez people! ) and all things idiot idiotphone, idiotmac, idiotpod, idiotpad,

You betcha skippy I am a fandroid. I am for the simple reason... its my portable computing device and I will put on it what I want and when I want, and how I want!

As for the issue at hand... I don't know the facts and the "facts" presented in the media are too distorted to determine the truth...

You hurt my feelings, NOtT. Is that the best you can do? I have heard much worse vitriol coming from others, try a bit harder please if you wish to annoy me.
By the way, how do you get Cisco involved here. Cisco and Apple came to an agreement to who could use the term iPhone, is that what you infer? You need to articulate a might better in future. Sure go and put the app killer, the number 1 app on their what, 4 app stores, read tomorrow and it will be 6 maybe.
The UI on android phone is rubbish they can't copy Apple too close otherwise they will be sued, it's that simple. Android is for geeks, it's what I term pseudo programmers.
I am a computer programmer and appreciate good UI, simplicity, ease of use, scalability, excellent architecture. That is why I use Apple products, they fit my philosophy, not the other way around, do you now get it. This is a big difference, so your comment on me being a fan boy is incorrect, and don't call me boy, it's quite disrespectful, Iam a man.
Android is on it's downwards spiral to oblivion, sure it will continue to sell, but soon will reach a crunch point where Mr and Mrs citizen cannot ascertain which device to use from the hundreds out there. Some may be good, some average and many more that will be crap.
How will they differentiate? That is why they are in trouble, their very success will be their ultimate downfall.
But in the corner will be the iPad, the iPhone and the iPod, which ones will they choose?
Go on picture the scenarion.
You geeks love to fence yourselves off from the mainstream, play with you android phones, okay, this doesn't bother me in the least, but don't rubbish a product that you don't know anything about, just like those M$ fans who rubbish Macs, but have never used one, but are experts never the less.

yeah, lets leave a few billion on the table because the guys who stole and published our stuff ( for profit as they themselves admit) subsequently removed (some) of the offensive code from their repository, after we filed suit.

It is code from SUN which determines which user is allowed user permissions. it is a fundamental part of package sun.security.

There is a fair amount of nonsense on this thread. Let me clarify:

1) the code here was taken and decompiled from Sun sources, not from the published GPL
2) the licence was changed, illegally. Sun/ Oracle grants licences to users, subject to the GPL. If the licence is changed the original patents apply. The licence was changed to Apache.
3) Publishing means making available on t'internet ( think of a book). The courts in copyright cases dont care about compilation. Was it in the unit test folder, and not compiled. Geeks may care, the courts are unconcerned.

Someone else's property ( Sun/Oracle) was taken and published ( on a source tree) for anyone to use using a licence which was not designed, nor approved by the creator of the intellectual property.

That in itself is enough. The other patent ( non copy right) suits are - suffice to say - encourged by this. You cant say you clean roomed the technology if a court has decided, as it must, that you copied some, or any, or the minutest percent, of someone else's technolgy.

when Compaq "cloned" the IBM BIOS. It

1) Hired engineers who had nothing to do with IBM
2) Had no code or decompiled IBM assembly.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.

From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.

Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.

Goodbye android. And good riddance.

So you are yahew?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.

Neither I, nor any court or law, would give what is legally called a flying fuck who uploaded someone else's IP to the repository maintained and thus published by Google Inc, multi-billionaire company. The case is against the company, Google Inc, who published said source code with a different licence.

There is, literally, no defence in law here.

The defence in code, it (were only a small sheep) was unit tests yer hnour, is both irrelevant, untrue, and yet humourous.

It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.

I (and most others) don't have enough information to know for sure that there was a copyright breach on the part of Google; I'll leave this to the courts to sort out.

However, the Oracle suit hangs a dark could over Dalvik (and hence, Android) so I am surprised that Google has not indemnified the handset makers (this would demonstrate that Google strongly believes that they are in the clear). This just seems to make sense in the course of business. Were I running a handset maker, I might be very inclined to buy into the known costs of WP7 over the unknown cost (to be determined by the courts) of using Android.

Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.

It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.

Oracle isn't going to be dumb enough to waste their time with this. There isn't any "willful" infringement when the company found out about the code and said "Removed pointless test files."

I don't believe there has to be anything wilful about copyright infringement, I think you're confusing copyright and patent infringement.

That fact remains that Google released proprietary Oracle/Sun source code when they were not authorised to do so.

Well suggesting that lawyers are "nit picky" when that is their job - to argue the law - is pretty silly, but then to turn around and call Oracle a "patent troll" for suing over patent infringement is simply absurd.

A Patent Troll is a holding company that does nothing but acquire patents and then sue companies who are actually producing products, usually with weak claims on obvious patents that were not known about by the companies who developed their "infringing" technology on their own.

Oracle's patents are intended to prevent the outright theft of the value of the IP created by Sun and productized in Java. Google wasn't unaware that Sun owned patents related to Java. This wasn't some submarine patent case.

It was a situation where Google could either have a) created its own technology or b) simply licensed Java, but instead decided to copy and then modify Java, give it away for free to kill the market for Java, and the use Android to sell its ads.

The only group of people who could categorize this situation as anything other than the definitive, proper role and entire purpose patents are intended to serve are intellectual communists who don't believe research and invention can be owned or sold as entities. And if you don't believe in commercial rights to IP, you can't turn around and say the GPL can be used to enforce the opposite. Either we have intellectual property rights or we don't, and only have anarchy.

Google is screwing both, stealing commercial technology for commercial release under the guise of "Free Software," while violating the GPL by erasing copyrights and replacing them with its own invented license. Would be hard to find examples of more egregious theft of technology outside of China.

I shouldn't have said that Oracle looks like a patent troll here. As yet Oracle hasn't included these particular files in their lawsuit. I don't know if Oracle's lawyers are going to make a big deal about these files at all, maybe they won't.